JITENDRA KUMAR BAIRWA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

ITA 1392/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 October 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's undertaking to file all bank details and confirmation letters from sundry creditors, decided to grant one more opportunity to meet the ends of justice. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Income Tax Department within two weeks, with the receipt to be produced before the JAO. Upon compliance, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside. The AO was directed to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to produce necessary details and pass a fresh assessment order on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate by filing the required documents. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the penalty proceedings (Grounds 3 and 4) as the matter was being remanded for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jitendra Kumar Bairwa, engaged in diamond trading, filed his return for AY 2023-24 declaring an income of Rs. 6,77,230/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated scrutiny and issued notices. The assessee partially complied. The AO noted that the assessee had not deducted TDS under Section 194Q on purchases of Rs. 89,34,27,004/-. The assessee claimed no payments were made on credit purchases. However, the AO observed a reduction of Rs. 32,39,37,552/- in sundry creditors during the financial year, indicating payments were made. Consequently, the AO disallowed 30% of this amount, Rs. 9,71,81,265/-, under Section 40(a)(ia) and added it to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, noting the lack of supporting documents from the assessee despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,71,81,265/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of expenditure on which TDS was required to be deducted but was not deducted/deposited, as per Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to provide adequate opportunities for hearing, leading to an ex-parte order, and if the case should be set aside and restored to the CIT(A) or AO. 3. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A read with Section 270A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee requested one more opportunity to explain its case and file bank statements, confirmations from sundry creditors, and other details to support the deletion of the addition. The assessee also argued that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunities and passed an ex-parte order. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and requested confirmation of the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194Q,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 143(3),Section 270A,Section 270A(7),Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, CA
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh

PER : T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the ex-party appellate order dated 04.08.2025 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to Asst. Year 2023-24. I.T.A No. 1392/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Jitendra Kumar Bairwa

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietor of Shree Pal Diamond located at Surat, engaged in trading of diamonds. For the Asst. Year 2023-24, assessee filed his return of inc

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 194Q

All 123 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194Q →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →